Search results

I think the logic for having it mutual by default is stronger, because the block is probably less about opinions, and more about interaction style. If you have had negative interactions that call for a block, knowing that they may continue to interact with your posts, even when you cannot see...

Published in 1400, and so is likely to be the oldest version of it in print. Having a frame tale like the tavern meeting was already an established trope at the time, but none of the prior examples are meeting in a tavern, as far as I am aware.

Good natured ribbing, or vicious attempt to knock you down the social status ladder? Only their hairdresser knows for sure.

I don't know if the checkbox for it is checked by default or not, sorry.

Aaaand, there go the goalposts, sliding off into the distance!

Why would you expect to see it? If it is not mutual, there's no outward sign of it. James blocks Mark in the mutual way, then James can't see Mark, and Mark can't see James. Mark might notice and comment on how he cannot see James. If James blocks Mark in the non-mutual way, then James can't...

Or, that people in the book care less about trivial physical characteristics than we do...

Whether it is mutual is a choice - I expect most folks do choose to make it mutual, but that is not required.

Nobody in my Wild Beyond the Witchlight campaign took the spell, so it had no effect. But, for that game, the party was largely trying to avoid getting into fights. That meant it wasn't a game pushing hard on resource management most of the time, so whether the PCs were safe while regaining...

Being absolutely clear that they could have been kind by default, but chose not to, is essential to correcting the behavior. And anyone giving backlash in advance now has to face that reality - they are making a choice, and they own that choice.

Getting into banter and teasing with someone you do not know, and cannot see or hear to know their reaction, is just terribly unwise. If you cannot otherwise prove that you actually care, teasing/mocking is an aggressive action, not a pleasant casual one. There's plenty of space between...

Mod note: Um, guys? If the criticism is weak sauce, you can (and should) make that case without also taking potshots at the person making the critique. I mean, even just rhetorically, the ad hominem actively works against you. And beyond that, it makes you look like bullies, and gets you red...

Depends on what texts. The SCA itself is actually ruled by a Corporate BOD. Locally, "royalty" is traditionally selected each year by a combat tournament (as if being able to hit people with sticks was going to get you a decent administrator for the year). But, the role of royalty is...

Mod note: Some things are true. Some things are false. And yet other things are matters of interpretation and impression. Everyone should make sure they are leaving sufficient room in their rhetoric for that last one, or problems will arise.

Mod note: Some of you are getting a little pointed and heated. I suggest you cool it off off, before the red text also has to become pointed.

So, with all respect, this isn't an issue of reason, or numbers - it is about how individual GMs want games to play out. If they want a fast way to ignore environmental effects and allow payers to have their rests work out when they want them, they include the spell. If not, they exclude it...

Bleh. Babylon 5 already showed us what comes of that position - fire, death, and no long-term advancement. Real progress comes when we stop fighting over crap.

That there is true or false discussion is an imaginary, artificial dichotomy of your making. I find your image of discussion to be horribly limited, encompassing only a subset of all good discussion. I don't have to disagree with someone in order to have an interesting and useful conversation...

Except, I don't think it really came back for 5e, which seems to be doing better than 3e or 4e. I don't figure many of the new players of the past decade think much in terms of GNS divisions.

Similar for Steve Harrington. Originally, the "redemption arc" was planned for Lonnie Byers, Will & Johnathan's estranged father. Joe Keery was just too darned charming, though, and they adjusted.